Post by: guest39538 on 30/07/2017 01:04:57
Please help I am learning a lot about charge and mass etc.
Post by: evan_au on 30/07/2017 05:19:49
Quote from: Thebox
a rock that has ... mass, but we don't know what the mass really isWe do know what the mass of a rock is, by "weighing" it.
There are a number of ways of measuring the mass of things:
- Some methods (like bathroom scales) really do measure weight, and will give the wrong answer for mass in a different gravitational field, such as on the Moon
- Some methods (like a balance scale) will give the right answer in any gravitational field (but fails in zero gravity)
- Some methods (like measuring the frequency of a vibrating spring) can work in zero gravity
Quote
so is the mass = charge and the charge is directly proportional to the mass?No, the mass and charge are independent.
- You can have the same mass (eg 1kg), but have a charge of 0, 1 electron, 2 electrons, etc (or a deficit of 1 electron, 2 electrons, etc)
- You can have a very different mass (eg 2kg), but have the same charge of 2 electrons (or a deficit of 2 electrons)
- The mass of an electron is so small compared to the mass of the rock that you could say that the charge does not affect the mass in any measurable way.
- If you get down to the level of a single (light) atom, you probably could measure the difference in mass between a single-charged and dual-charged ion in a mass spectrograph. But for objects visible to the naked eye, the mass of an electron can be ignored.
Millikan's oil-drop experiment was able to measure the charge on the electron by measuring the charge on an oil droplet when subjected to radioactive source. This did not change the mass of the oil droplet in any measurable way, but it did change the charge on the droplet.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment
Post by: guest39538 on 30/07/2017 12:25:17
Thank you Evan, however you do know already I am going to question this information thoughtfully and thoroughly .Quote from: Theboxa rock that has ... mass, but we don't know what the mass really isWe do know what the mass of a rock is, by "weighing" it.
There are a number of ways of measuring the mass of things:
- Some methods (like bathroom scales) really do measure weight, and will give the wrong answer for mass in a different gravitational field, such as on the Moon
- Some methods (like a balance scale) will give the right answer in any gravitational field (but fails in zero gravity)
- Some methods (like measuring the frequency of a vibrating spring) can work in zero gravityQuoteso is the mass = charge and the charge is directly proportional to the mass?No, the mass and charge are independent.
- You can have the same mass (eg 1kg), but have a charge of 0, 1 electron, 2 electrons, etc (or a deficit of 1 electron, 2 electrons, etc)
- You can have a very different mass (eg 2kg), but have the same charge of 2 electrons (or a deficit of 2 electrons)
- The mass of an electron is so small compared to the mass of the rock that you could say that the charge does not affect the mass in any measurable way.
- If you get down to the level of a single (light) atom, you probably could measure the difference in mass between a single-charged and dual-charged ion in a mass spectrograph. But for objects visible to the naked eye, the mass of an electron can be ignored.
Millikan's oil-drop experiment was able to measure the charge on the electron by measuring the charge on an oil droplet when subjected to radioactive source. This did not change the mass of the oil droplet in any measurable way, but it did change the charge on the droplet.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment
Let us look at a single electron, it has charge and it has mass, however science can not explain what mass is in detail, they can only explain it in kg.
Coulumb's law also uses Newtons, are you sure the mass of the object is not newtons of force being applied by the charge?
P.s a rock shows o net charge but it has charge, so I don't understand your example to be ''working'' in this situation.
The electron can't have mass and charge, the charge is dependent to the electron and the mass is dependent to the electron, science on one page is saying they do not know what gravity mechanism is but then on a different page explain charge which works exactly the same as gravity does. I argue charge is mass and the affect of charge is gravity, I argue this because it is what science is telling me.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/07/2017 12:40:59
however science can not explain what mass is in detail, they can only explain it in kg.No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_generation
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/07/2017 12:42:51
The electron can't have mass and charge,In reality, it does.
You need to understand that when reality doesn't agree with you, it isn't because reality has made a mistake.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/07/2017 14:42:44
Then you can explain what mass is can you? I think not, because mass and charge are the same think. Mass is the ''weight'' of force of the charge. An electron is attracted to the proton, so therefore the electrons in my body are attracted to the protons of the earth, valued logic that is pretty undeniable.The electron can't have mass and charge,In reality, it does.
You need to understand that when reality doesn't agree with you, it isn't because reality has made a mistake.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/07/2017 14:43:47
Your explain does not explain mass .however science can not explain what mass is in detail, they can only explain it in kg.No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_generation
Post by: Kryptid on 30/07/2017 15:01:56
Post by: jeffreyH on 30/07/2017 15:07:51
PS this implies a broken symmetry is required to maintain the stability of atoms.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/07/2017 15:09:34
The Higgs boson and Z boson do not have any electric charge, yet they both have mass. Current evidence points to the neutrino having mass as well. The electron, muon and tauon all have different masses despite having identical electric charges. There is no obvious connection between charge and mass.A rock has mass and atomic charge but shows no net charge.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/07/2017 15:12:20
I have only ever found a link between stable forms of matter and charge. This involves the up and down quark and the electron. It is however asymmetrical. So no there is no direct proportionality between mass and charge.The more charge an atom gains , the more it ''pulls back'' by the attraction properties of charge on charge. The strong nuclear force is this.
PS this implies a broken symmetry is required to maintain the stability of atoms.
added- Consider atoms to be a ''hulk'' particle bond.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/07/2017 16:26:35
No it isn't.
The more charge an atom gains , the more it ''pulls back'' by the attraction properties of charge on charge. The strong nuclear force is this.
If charge and mass are the same thing how come a positron has the same charge as a proton, but a different mass?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/07/2017 16:28:06
Because charge is dynamic. What is a positron lol? sounds made upNo it isn't.
The more charge an atom gains , the more it ''pulls back'' by the attraction properties of charge on charge. The strong nuclear force is this.
If charge and mass are the same thing how come a positron has the same charge as a proton, but a different mass?
added- thank you they have the same mass
''The positron or antielectron is the antiparticle or the antimatter counterpart of the electron. The positron has an electric charge of +1 e, a spin of 1/2 (same as electron), and has the same mass as an electron.''
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/07/2017 16:40:44
thank you for airing the depths of your ignorance.Because charge is dynamic. What is a positron lol? sounds made upNo it isn't.
The more charge an atom gains , the more it ''pulls back'' by the attraction properties of charge on charge. The strong nuclear force is this.
If charge and mass are the same thing how come a positron has the same charge as a proton, but a different mass?
added- thank you they have the same mass
''The positron or antielectron is the antiparticle or the antimatter counterpart of the electron. The positron has an electric charge of +1 e, a spin of 1/2 (same as electron), and has the same mass as an electron.''
"Because charge is dynamic."
No it isn't.
"What is a positron lol?"
It's the antiparticle of an electron- it has the same mass as an electron, but the opposite charge.
"sounds made up"
All name are made up- had you not realised that?
"thank you they have the same mass"
No they don't.
The positron has the same mass as the electron (as that quote says).
But if you read what I posted you would see that I said the positron has a different mass from the proton.
And it has. The proton mass is about 1800 times more than that of the positron.
First you need to learn to read.
Then you need to learn some physics.
Post by: Kryptid on 30/07/2017 17:36:44
A rock has mass and atomic charge but shows no net charge.
Unlike atoms, there is no evidence that fundamental particles like neutrinos and Z bosons have internal, electrically-charged components. The fact that neutrinos only interact via the gravitational and weak nuclear force and are not affected by electric fields further demonstrates this point. This is why neutrinos interact so rarely with atomic matter.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/07/2017 17:53:22
A rock has mass and atomic charge but shows no net charge.
Unlike atoms, there is no evidence that fundamental particles like neutrinos and Z bosons have internal, electrically-charged components. The fact that neutrinos only interact via the gravitational and weak nuclear force and are not affected by electric fields further demonstrates this point. This is why neutrinos interact so rarely with atomic matter.
If something has entropy then that something can retain energy in some form or is an energy in some form. Neutrinos are observed like atoms? or are neutrinos a bit made up? Made up things should not come into the thinking.
added- The neutrinos have lost the ability to hold charge?
added- Neutrinos are both charges so observed neutral?
Post by: Kryptid on 30/07/2017 18:03:25
If something has entropy then that something can retain energy in some form or is an energy in some form.
I don't know what that has to do with your proposal of charge and mass being the same.
Quote
Neutrinos are observed like atoms? or are neutrinos a bit made up? Made up things should not come into the thinking.
Neutrinos are not "made up". That have been detected repeatedly, can be created in particle accelerators and have even been used to communicate with: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/mar/19/neutrino-based-communication-is-a-first (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/mar/19/neutrino-based-communication-is-a-first)
Quote
added- The neutrinos have lost the ability to hold charge?
Then they should be massless, according to your reasoning. They are not massless.
Quote
added- Neutrinos are both charges so observed neutral?
If neutrinos contained positive and negative charges, even if they balanced out to be neutral, then they would be able to interact via the electromagnetic force and thus would interact with atomic matter far more easily.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/07/2017 18:15:51
Thank you , you make a good valued argument against my notion. I am not sure that electromagnetism is the same thing as charge, but in light of your statement about the Neutrino not being massless as given the need for more thinking .If something has entropy then that something can retain energy in some form or is an energy in some form.
I don't know what that has to do with your proposal of charge and mass being the same.QuoteNeutrinos are observed like atoms? or are neutrinos a bit made up? Made up things should not come into the thinking.
Neutrinos are not "made up". That have been detected repeatedly, can be created in particle accelerators and have even been used to communicate with: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/mar/19/neutrino-based-communication-is-a-first (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/mar/19/neutrino-based-communication-is-a-first)Quoteadded- The neutrinos have lost the ability to hold charge?
Then they should be massless, according to your reasoning. They are not massless.Quoteadded- Neutrinos are both charges so observed neutral?
If neutrinos contained positive and negative charges, even if they balanced out to be neutral, then they would be able to interact via the electromagnetic force and thus would interact with atomic matter far more easily.
So you are saying to me if I had a handful of neutrinos that have no measured charge, threw them into the air , they fall back down like Newtons apple. Maybe the charge is too weak to detect by device at this time?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/07/2017 21:02:11
Made up things should not come into the thinking.
Well stop making stuff up then.
"Light is massless and has no charge unlike a rock that has charge and mass,"
The idea that a rock has charge is a thing you have made up.
"Coulumb's law also uses Newtons, are you sure the mass of the object is not newtons of force being applied by the charge? "
Is another
This "The electron can't have mass and charge," is not only made up but factually wrong.
You made this up too.
"Because charge is dynamic. "
And so on.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/07/2017 21:12:27
A rock has electrons and protons, electrons and protons have charge, but A+B=NMade up things should not come into the thinking.
Well stop making stuff up then.
"Light is massless and has no charge unlike a rock that has charge and mass,"
The idea that a rock has charge is a thing you have made up.
"Coulumb's law also uses Newtons, are you sure the mass of the object is not newtons of force being applied by the charge? "
Is another
This "The electron can't have mass and charge," is not only made up but factually wrong.
You made this up too.
"Because charge is dynamic. "
And so on.
I do not make stuff up, you are just not understanding it if you think it is made up.
Quote
When the electromagnetic theory is expressed using the standard SI units, force is measured in newtons, charge in coulombs, and distance in metres.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
proton mass =1.6726219 × 10-27 kilograms That is the ''weight'' of force.
proton +1e is the culprit of causing the ''weight'' of force by being attracted to charge −e??????
Post by: Kryptid on 30/07/2017 23:01:44
Thank you , you make a good valued argument against my notion. I am not sure that electromagnetism is the same thing as charge, but in light of your statement about the Neutrino not being massless as given the need for more thinking .
Just for the record, I used to have pretty much the same idea as you do many years ago (that gravity is a result of electric charge).
Quote
So you are saying to me if I had a handful of neutrinos that have no measured charge, threw them into the air , they fall back down like Newtons apple.
Assuming you could somehow hold and throw them, and that they wouldn't reach escape velocity in the process, yes.
Quote
Maybe the charge is too weak to detect by device at this time?
If neutrinos did have any amount of electric charge, then they would violate conservation of electric charge in certain processes such as beta decay.
Another thought: how do strong gravitational fields bend light in your hypothesis? Electromagnetic fields do not bend light the way that gravity does.
Post by: guest39538 on 31/07/2017 21:10:58
I can not explain everything, I am not a ''god'' . Can I ask at what stage, what thing, made you give up on the charge idea?Thank you , you make a good valued argument against my notion. I am not sure that electromagnetism is the same thing as charge, but in light of your statement about the Neutrino not being massless as given the need for more thinking .
Just for the record, I used to have pretty much the same idea as you do many years ago (that gravity is a result of electric charge).QuoteSo you are saying to me if I had a handful of neutrinos that have no measured charge, threw them into the air , they fall back down like Newtons apple.
Assuming you could somehow hold and throw them, and that they wouldn't reach escape velocity in the process, yes.QuoteMaybe the charge is too weak to detect by device at this time?
If neutrinos did have any amount of electric charge, then they would violate conservation of electric charge in certain processes such as beta decay.
Another thought: how do strong gravitational fields bend light in your hypothesis? Electromagnetic fields do not bend light the way that gravity does.
Is electrical charge the same as atomic charge would be my question?
A gravity field that bends light would be a charged field opposing ''charge'' in my opinion.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/07/2017 22:08:13
A rock still has no charge.A rock has electrons and protons, electrons and protons have charge, but A+B=NMade up things should not come into the thinking.
Well stop making stuff up then.
"Light is massless and has no charge unlike a rock that has charge and mass,"
The idea that a rock has charge is a thing you have made up.
"Coulumb's law also uses Newtons, are you sure the mass of the object is not newtons of force being applied by the charge? "
Is another
This "The electron can't have mass and charge," is not only made up but factually wrong.
You made this up too.
"Because charge is dynamic. "
And so on.
I do not make stuff up, you are just not understanding it if you think it is made up.
"you are just not understanding it "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Post by: guest39538 on 31/07/2017 22:21:04
No, you are practically saying the rock is not made of atoms. The rock has atomic charge. I am not sure this is the same as electric charge.A rock still has no charge.A rock has electrons and protons, electrons and protons have charge, but A+B=NMade up things should not come into the thinking.
Well stop making stuff up then.
"Light is massless and has no charge unlike a rock that has charge and mass,"
The idea that a rock has charge is a thing you have made up.
"Coulumb's law also uses Newtons, are you sure the mass of the object is not newtons of force being applied by the charge? "
Is another
This "The electron can't have mass and charge," is not only made up but factually wrong.
You made this up too.
"Because charge is dynamic. "
And so on.
I do not make stuff up, you are just not understanding it if you think it is made up.
"you are just not understanding it "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
I know the Dunning and Kruger affect, that certainly does not apply. You cant say the rock has mass and is made of atoms, i.e electrons and protons that have charge, and then say the rock has no charge. That does not make any sense .
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/07/2017 22:25:23
atomic chargeThat's another made-up thing.
You really should stop.
You also need to understand that charges can cancel out.
Post by: guest39538 on 31/07/2017 22:29:59
Is this the part where we do it all in reverse so I have to give the correct answers? i.e you are being me and I have to be you and give you the present answer?atomic chargeThat's another made-up thing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_aqa_pre_2011/atomic/atomstrucrev1.shtml
What do you call the charge of an atom? i.e (+1e)+(-e)=N I call it atomic charge which is saying the charge of an atom?
P.s Anyone would never think I have discussed ions before. i..e a change of mass, whoops I meant charge lol
Post by: guest39538 on 31/07/2017 22:51:32
You also need to understand that charges can cancel out.
I have already said this in several languages
A+B=C
q1+q2=q3
(-e)+(+1e)=N or 0
P.s Understand , just because the rock reads no net charge , both charges still exist in the rock but at a perfect balance to give N.
p.s The balanced charges of the rock are still attracted to the opposite charges of another rock and vice versus.
Anions and Cations within a body change the velocity of a body in motion in accordance with the electrodynamics of moving bodies and Newtons first law of motion.
If an entire body in motion was to become polarised to a Cation or an Anion, it would change in velocity when near an opposite or likewise polarised body. (Depending on magnitude and velocity of course).
For those who do not believe this, go try bend some water. Static electricity can bend it like Beckham.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/08/2017 16:26:23
I can not explain everything, I am not a ''god''
I don't expect you to know everything, but if a hypothesis is unable to explain a particular aspect of a phenomenon, that's a good sign that the hypothesis is wrong.
Quote
Can I ask at what stage, what thing, made you give up on the charge idea?
I can't recall exactly (as it was a long time ago), but I think neutrinos played a big part in it (as well as the fact that fundamental particles with identical charge, such as electrons and muons, can have greatly difference masses).
Quote
Is electrical charge the same as atomic charge would be my question?
You mean the electric charge of an atomic nucleus? Yes.
Quote
A gravity field that bends light would be a charged field opposing ''charge'' in my opinion.
I'm not sure I understand this. What charge do photons have that can be opposed in the first place? Do you have any research showing light bending in strong electromagnetic fields?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/08/2017 16:50:58
I can not explain everything, I am not a ''god''
I don't expect you to know everything, but if a hypothesis is unable to explain a particular aspect of a phenomenon, that's a good sign that the hypothesis is wrong.QuoteCan I ask at what stage, what thing, made you give up on the charge idea?
I can't recall exactly (as it was a long time ago), but I think neutrinos played a big part in it (as well as the fact that fundamental particles with identical charge, such as electrons and muons, can have greatly difference masses).QuoteIs electrical charge the same as atomic charge would be my question?
You mean the electric charge of an atomic nucleus? Yes.QuoteA gravity field that bends light would be a charged field opposing ''charge'' in my opinion.
I'm not sure I understand this. What charge do photons have that can be opposed in the first place? Do you have any research showing light bending in strong electromagnetic fields?
I should hope electrons and protons do have different mass or my idea fails. A proton with a greater mass would be an Cation for example. A Cation has greater charge than a proton.
If the electron has more mass, it is more of an anion.
I believe this explains your query.
Maybe Photons have both charges q1+q2=N
Maybe Photons are not even real, I have found no evidence in all my ''research'', a Photon is seemingly imaginable but not factual.
added- ''mumble mode'': Something to with water bending by electrostatic forces, the light does not bend , the water does. Gravitational lensing not being light bending but the light defining a shape.
added- Ok, back out of deep thought, yes , that is the answer, gravitational curvature of light is not the curvature of the light, the light is just defining the shape of the curve. Meaning that if light reflects off a sphere, the sphere is the shape , the light does not shape.
perspective.jpg (15.61 kB . 1001x617 - viewed 4079 times)Science stop thinking in 2d please!
Post by: guest39538 on 01/08/2017 17:12:50
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Kryptid on 01/08/2017 22:32:26
I should hope electrons and protons do have different mass or my idea fails.
Protons and electrons have identical charge (both net and gross) and thus should have identical mass if gravity is caused by charge. They do not. A rock has a net charge of zero, but it has a very large gross charge (but the positives and negatives cancel each other out). This is not true for electrons and protons, which have their net charges equal to their gross charges. You therefore cannot blame the proton's greater mass on having some greater gross charge than an electron does.
Quote
A proton with a greater mass would be an Cation for example. A Cation has greater charge than a proton.
A cation is a positively charge ion, not a proton "with a greater mass". They also don't necessarily have greater charge than a proton, as a lithium cation also has a +1 charge (equal to a proton). A cation has greater gross charge than a proton (since it has more charged particles in it), but its net charge can be the same. If net charge is what causes mass, then protons should have mass while neutrons should be massless. If gross charge determines mass instead, then protons and electrons should be equal in mass. Neither is the case.
Quote
If the electron has more mass, it is more of an anion.
Again, no. Anions are negatively-charged ions. Electrons by themselves are not anions, as anions have atomic nuclei.
Quote
Maybe Photons have both charges q1+q2=N
If that was the case, then they would be neither attracted towards nor repelled away from electric fields. This still means that gravitational fields cannot be electric fields because photons are attracted to gravitational fields but not electric fields.
Quote
Maybe Photons are not even real, I have found no evidence in all my ''research'', a Photon is seemingly imaginable but not factual.
The existence of photons explains the photoelectric effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect) and why there is not an ultraviolet catastrophe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe). Individual photons can be detected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_counting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_counting) Even if it was somehow true that photons did not exist, light itself most certainly does and it also most certainly is attracted by gravitational fields without being attracted by electromagnetic fields. Therefore, denying the existence of photons does not solve your problem.
Quote
added- ''mumble mode'': Something to with water bending by electrostatic forces, the light does not bend , the water does. Gravitational lensing not being light bending but the light defining a shape.
added- Ok, back out of deep thought, yes , that is the answer, gravitational curvature of light is not the curvature of the light, the light is just defining the shape of the curve. Meaning that if light reflects off a sphere, the sphere is the shape , the light does not shape.
And how, exactly, do electromagnetic fields cause this "curve"? Why haven't we been able to curve light in the lab with electromagnetic fields if it is indeed able to do so?
Post by: evan_au on 01/08/2017 23:29:28
Quote from: TheBox
the charge is directly proportional to the mass?I think what you mean is "If you add up the positive and negative charges in a piece matter (eg positive protons + negative electrons, ignoring the signs), the mass of the matter will be proportional to the total charge"?
Consider Hydrogen and Carbon:
- Hydrogen has 1 proton + 1 electron = 2 charges. It's mass is 1.008 g/mol, due to a mass of 1 proton + 1 electron.
- Carbon has 6 protons + 6 electrons = 12 charges. It's mass is 12.011 g/mol, due to a mass of 6 protons + 6 electrons + 6 (or 7) neutrons
So Mass is not proportional to Charge.
See: http://www.ptable.com/
Consider Quarks:
- The "Up" Quark with a charge of 2/3 has a mass of 2.3 MeV/c2
- The "Top" Quark has the same charge: 2/3, but a mass of 173,210 MeV/c2
- The "Down" Quark a charge half the size of the Up quark: -1/3, but the mass is twice as big at 4.8 MeV/c2
So the magnitude of the charge is not proportional to the mass.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark#Table_of_properties
Post by: guest39538 on 01/08/2017 23:30:30
I think you may of misunderstood me a bit there. An Ion is an atom with a net charge, if the Ion is more positively charged, we call this a Cation. However what you have misunderstood here by my poor wording, the gain of positive charge is gained by the Proton. i.e A Proton that shows a net charge is Cation, the electron part of the atom is still negative in charge and still an electron. In the vice versus an atom that becomes more negative charged is still an ion, but now an anion. The electron gains more charge and is is called an anion, the proton in this situation is still a proton.I should hope electrons and protons do have different mass or my idea fails.
Protons and electrons have identical charge (both net and gross) and thus should have identical mass if gravity is caused by charge. They do not. A rock has a net charge of zero, but it has a very large gross charge (but the positives and negatives cancel each other out). This is not true for electrons and protons, which have their net charges equal to their gross charges. You therefore cannot blame the proton's greater mass on having some greater gross charge than an electron does.QuoteA proton with a greater mass would be an Cation for example. A Cation has greater charge than a proton.
A cation is a positively charge ion, not a proton "with a greater mass". They also don't necessarily have greater charge than a proton, as a lithium cation also has a +1 charge (equal to a proton). A cation has greater gross charge than a proton (since it has more charged particles in it), but its net charge can be the same. If net charge is what causes mass, then protons should have mass while neutrons should be massless. If gross charge determines mass instead, then protons and electrons should be equal in mass. Neither is the case.QuoteIf the electron has more mass, it is more of an anion.
Again, no. Anions are negatively-charged ions. Electrons by themselves are not anions, as anions have atomic nuclei.QuoteMaybe Photons have both charges q1+q2=N
If that was the case, then they would be neither attracted towards nor repelled away from electric fields. This still means that gravitational fields cannot be electric fields because photons are attracted to gravitational fields but not electric fields.QuoteMaybe Photons are not even real, I have found no evidence in all my ''research'', a Photon is seemingly imaginable but not factual.
The existence of photons explains the photoelectric effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect) and why there is not an ultraviolet catastrophe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe). Individual photons can be detected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_counting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_counting) Even if it was somehow true that photons did not exist, light itself most certainly does and it also most certainly is attracted by gravitational fields without being attracted by electromagnetic fields. Therefore, denying the existence of photons does not solve your problem.Quoteadded- ''mumble mode'': Something to with water bending by electrostatic forces, the light does not bend , the water does. Gravitational lensing not being light bending but the light defining a shape.
added- Ok, back out of deep thought, yes , that is the answer, gravitational curvature of light is not the curvature of the light, the light is just defining the shape of the curve. Meaning that if light reflects off a sphere, the sphere is the shape , the light does not shape.
And how, exactly, do electromagnetic fields cause this "curve"? Why haven't we been able to curve light in the lab with electromagnetic fields if it is indeed able to do so?
Hopefully now you understand what I meant.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/08/2017 23:32:06
Quote from: TheBoxthe charge is directly proportional to the mass?I think what you mean is "If you add up the positive and negative charges in a piece matter (eg positive protons + negative electrons, ignoring the signs), the mass of the matter will be proportional to the total charge"?
yes exactly that.
Added- I read the rest which I now need to think more about , , charge is dynamic ? mass is dynamic?
Post by: Kryptid on 01/08/2017 23:38:31
I think you may of misunderstood me a bit there. An Ion is an atom with a net charge, if the Ion is more positively charged, we call this a Cation. However what you have misunderstood here by my poor wording, the gain of positive charge is gained by the Proton. i.e A Proton that shows a net charge is Cation, the electron part of the atom is still negative in charge and still an electron. In the vice versus an atom that becomes more negative charged is still an ion, but now an anion. The electron gains more charge and is is called an anion, the proton in this situation is still a proton.
Hopefully now you understand what I meant.
Electrons and protons do not gain or lose charge when an atom is ionized. What you have is an excess or depletion of electrons. The charge on individual protons and electrons is completely unaffected.
What evan_au said about hydrogen and carbon is true: the ratio of charge to mass is different for a carbon atom than it is for a hydrogen atom. Another shot against your hypothesis.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/08/2017 23:39:30
Consider Hydrogen and Carbon:
- Hydrogen has 1 proton + 1 electron = 2 charges. It's mass is 1.008 g/mol, due to a mass of 1 proton + 1 electron.
- Carbon has 6 protons + 6 electrons = 12 charges. It's mass is 12.011 g/mol, due to a mass of 6 protons + 6 electrons + 6 (or 7) neutrons
Ok, I will go away and do some maths on what you have just said to work out the mass difference in your example.
The figures of mass you posted look close in consideration to the multiple.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/08/2017 23:41:52
Yes I am going to work that out and calculate the difference, at this stage it is looking like a ''spanner in my works''.I think you may of misunderstood me a bit there. An Ion is an atom with a net charge, if the Ion is more positively charged, we call this a Cation. However what you have misunderstood here by my poor wording, the gain of positive charge is gained by the Proton. i.e A Proton that shows a net charge is Cation, the electron part of the atom is still negative in charge and still an electron. In the vice versus an atom that becomes more negative charged is still an ion, but now an anion. The electron gains more charge and is is called an anion, the proton in this situation is still a proton.
Hopefully now you understand what I meant.
Electrons and protons do not gain or lose charge when an atom is ionized. What you have is an excess or depletion of electrons. The charge on individual protons and electrons is completely unaffected.
What evan_au said about hydrogen and carbon is true: the ratio of charge to mass is different for a carbon atom than it is for a hydrogen atom. Another shot against your hypothesis.
I am glad my time notion is pretty ''unbreakable''. :D
Post by: Kryptid on 01/08/2017 23:42:53
The figures of mass you posted look close in consideration to the multiple.
They are indeed close, but they are not identical. If they were, then nuclear reactions would not produce energy.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/08/2017 23:45:47
the mass of the matter will be proportional to the total charge"?
Ok, after rethinking on my error in thinking,
The mass of the matter will be proportional to the total force of charge? F=q1q2?
Post by: Kryptid on 01/08/2017 23:48:51
total force of charge
What does that mean?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/08/2017 23:56:41
Charge applies force on opposite charges and likewise charges, it means the total force of the total charge in a body. Even though two bricks will say no net charge , the atomic charge still exists and still has affect on other rocks. Only the inertia of the rock stops it moving. If two rocks were in a non inertia reference frame, the rocks would attract each other by opposite charges until a point of equilibrium between charges was reached i.e r²total force of charge
What does that mean?
Post by: Kryptid on 01/08/2017 23:59:07
Charge applies force on opposite charges and likewise charges, it means the total force of the total charge in a body. Even though two bricks will say no net charge , the atomic charge still exists and still has affect on other rocks. Only the inertia of the rock stops it moving. If two rocks were in a non inertia reference frame, the rocks would attract each other by opposite charges until a point of equilibrium between charges was reached i.e r²total force of charge
What does that mean?
How is that any different from saying that mass is directly proportional to charge?
Post by: guest39538 on 02/08/2017 00:57:52
Because in example, I will make upCharge applies force on opposite charges and likewise charges, it means the total force of the total charge in a body. Even though two bricks will say no net charge , the atomic charge still exists and still has affect on other rocks. Only the inertia of the rock stops it moving. If two rocks were in a non inertia reference frame, the rocks would attract each other by opposite charges until a point of equilibrium between charges was reached i.e r²total force of charge
What does that mean?
How is that any different from saying that mass is directly proportional to charge?
Imagine 1 electron and 1 proton in one nucleus 1+1=N
Now imagine 6 protons and 6 electrons in one nucleus 6+6=N
So although they have a different amount of components, the overall values still add up to N.
I am not sure, I thought I explained it differently , will try again tomorrow.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/08/2017 20:38:54
What do you call the charge of an atom? i.e (+1e)+(-e)=N I call it atomic charge which is saying the charge of an atom?I call the charge of an atom zero. So does everyone else.
(It's a bit like a rock).
"Charged atoms" are called ions.
So, more or less, by definition, an atom has no charge.
If you wanted you could learn what the accepted terminology is and what the facts are.
Then you would understand that- no matter how loudly you protest, a rock has no charge.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/08/2017 20:41:12
Because in example, I will make upAs you pointed out earlier, it's better if you don't make stuff up.
Imagine 1 electron and 1 proton in one nucleus 1+1=N
There aren't any electrons in the nuclei.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/08/2017 01:28:28
An atom still has a charge of +1e in a rock, you will measure it at 0e because -e gives it the equilibrium.What do you call the charge of an atom? i.e (+1e)+(-e)=N I call it atomic charge which is saying the charge of an atom?I call the charge of an atom zero. So does everyone else.
(It's a bit like a rock).
"Charged atoms" are called ions.
So, more or less, by definition, an atom has no charge.
If you wanted you could learn what the accepted terminology is and what the facts are.
Then you would understand that- no matter how loudly you protest, a rock has no charge.
You are saying the equivalent to that if i had two equal mass apples on a set of pan scales perfectly balanced at 0, that one side of the scales becomes empty.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/08/2017 17:50:33
Post by: guest39538 on 03/08/2017 18:11:32
added- no, is gravity the fine balance between charges of a system?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/08/2017 19:34:46
"An atom still has a charge of +1e in a rock"An atom still has a charge of +1e in a rock, you will measure it at 0e because -e gives it the equilibrium.What do you call the charge of an atom? i.e (+1e)+(-e)=N I call it atomic charge which is saying the charge of an atom?I call the charge of an atom zero. So does everyone else.
(It's a bit like a rock).
"Charged atoms" are called ions.
So, more or less, by definition, an atom has no charge.
If you wanted you could learn what the accepted terminology is and what the facts are.
Then you would understand that- no matter how loudly you protest, a rock has no charge.
You are saying the equivalent to that if i had two equal mass apples on a set of pan scales perfectly balanced at 0, that one side of the scales becomes empty.
No.
The atom is neutral.
An ion might have a +1 charge but if it has there's something else there with a -1 charge to make up for it.
Overall the rock has no charge.
"You are saying the equivalent to that if i had two equal mass apples on a set of pan scales perfectly balanced at 0, that one side of the scales becomes empty. "
No. Stop lying about what I'm saying- it just makes you look foolish.
I'm saying that the torque produced by the two pans is zero.
Please try to learn some physics, rather than making up sh1t.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/08/2017 21:09:03
Try thinking in general it would help."An atom still has a charge of +1e in a rock"An atom still has a charge of +1e in a rock, you will measure it at 0e because -e gives it the equilibrium.What do you call the charge of an atom? i.e (+1e)+(-e)=N I call it atomic charge which is saying the charge of an atom?I call the charge of an atom zero. So does everyone else.
(It's a bit like a rock).
"Charged atoms" are called ions.
So, more or less, by definition, an atom has no charge.
If you wanted you could learn what the accepted terminology is and what the facts are.
Then you would understand that- no matter how loudly you protest, a rock has no charge.
You are saying the equivalent to that if i had two equal mass apples on a set of pan scales perfectly balanced at 0, that one side of the scales becomes empty.
No.
The atom is neutral.
An ion might have a +1 charge but if it has there's something else there with a -1 charge to make up for it.
Overall the rock has no charge.
"You are saying the equivalent to that if i had two equal mass apples on a set of pan scales perfectly balanced at 0, that one side of the scales becomes empty. "
No. Stop lying about what I'm saying- it just makes you look foolish.
I'm saying that the torque produced by the two pans is zero.
Please try to learn some physics, rather than making up sh1t.
Post by: Kryptid on 03/08/2017 21:17:20
An electron is attracted to the proton, so therefore the electrons in my body are attracted to the protons of the earth, valued logic that is pretty undeniable.
The only way there can be a net attraction between the electrons in your body and the protons in the Earth would be if the matter in both your body and the Earth was polarized (i.e. more electron density on one side than the other). This would basically mean that gravity is a London dispersion force similar to that which holds matter together on a molecular scale.
This, however, would be very detectable. The Earth as a whole would need to have a polarization such that the side facing the Moon would be of one net charge while the opposite side would have the opposite charge. The same would true of the Moon. On a monthly basis, this charge would move around the Earth as the polarization followed the Moon's movements, no doubt affecting sensitive experiments involving electric charge. I know of no such reported interference.
It would also mean that artificial gravity would be created every time you induced an electric dipole in matter (such as applying an electric field to a dielectric). Again, such effects are not detected.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/08/2017 22:24:42
I did.Try thinking in general it would help."An atom still has a charge of +1e in a rock"An atom still has a charge of +1e in a rock, you will measure it at 0e because -e gives it the equilibrium.What do you call the charge of an atom? i.e (+1e)+(-e)=N I call it atomic charge which is saying the charge of an atom?I call the charge of an atom zero. So does everyone else.
(It's a bit like a rock).
"Charged atoms" are called ions.
So, more or less, by definition, an atom has no charge.
If you wanted you could learn what the accepted terminology is and what the facts are.
Then you would understand that- no matter how loudly you protest, a rock has no charge.
You are saying the equivalent to that if i had two equal mass apples on a set of pan scales perfectly balanced at 0, that one side of the scales becomes empty.
No.
The atom is neutral.
An ion might have a +1 charge but if it has there's something else there with a -1 charge to make up for it.
Overall the rock has no charge.
"You are saying the equivalent to that if i had two equal mass apples on a set of pan scales perfectly balanced at 0, that one side of the scales becomes empty. "
No. Stop lying about what I'm saying- it just makes you look foolish.
I'm saying that the torque produced by the two pans is zero.
Please try to learn some physics, rather than making up sh1t.
If charge was mass why would anyone have invented different words for them?
Why would everyone else in this thread be pointing out that you are wrong?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/08/2017 22:31:35
Then what is mass if not charge? Charge is seemingly the only thing it can be.I did.Try thinking in general it would help."An atom still has a charge of +1e in a rock"An atom still has a charge of +1e in a rock, you will measure it at 0e because -e gives it the equilibrium.What do you call the charge of an atom? i.e (+1e)+(-e)=N I call it atomic charge which is saying the charge of an atom?I call the charge of an atom zero. So does everyone else.
(It's a bit like a rock).
"Charged atoms" are called ions.
So, more or less, by definition, an atom has no charge.
If you wanted you could learn what the accepted terminology is and what the facts are.
Then you would understand that- no matter how loudly you protest, a rock has no charge.
You are saying the equivalent to that if i had two equal mass apples on a set of pan scales perfectly balanced at 0, that one side of the scales becomes empty.
No.
The atom is neutral.
An ion might have a +1 charge but if it has there's something else there with a -1 charge to make up for it.
Overall the rock has no charge.
"You are saying the equivalent to that if i had two equal mass apples on a set of pan scales perfectly balanced at 0, that one side of the scales becomes empty. "
No. Stop lying about what I'm saying- it just makes you look foolish.
I'm saying that the torque produced by the two pans is zero.
Please try to learn some physics, rather than making up sh1t.
If charge was mass why would anyone have invented different words for them?
Why would everyone else in this thread be pointing out that you are wrong?
Post by: evan_au on 03/08/2017 22:32:46
Quote from: TheBox
An electron is attracted to the proton, so therefore the electrons in my body are attracted to the protons of the earth, valued logic that is pretty undeniable.Another way of looking at this is:
- An electron is attracted to the proton in the same atom. Agree. Without this electron, the atom in which this electron resides would have a net positive charge.
- An electron is attracted to the proton in a chemically bonded molecule. Agree. Without this electron, the molecule in which this electron resides would have a net positive charge.
- the electrons in my body are attracted to the protons of the earth. Disagree. This is saying that your body is a separate object from the Earth. If you took one electron from your body, the Earth would still be electrically neutral, and your body would not be attracted to the Earth. The electron you removed from your body would not be attracted to the Earth either (although the electron would be attracted to your body).
When you have a certain number of protons in the nucleus, and an equal number of electrons surrounding it, the electrons effectively shield the positive charge, once you move 2 or 3 atom-widths away from the atom (the London forces mentioned by Kryptid will operate closer than this to an atom).
So the electrons in your body are not attracted to the protons of the Earth - they are just too far away.
At best you could say that some surface atoms on the soles of your shoes are attracted to a few surface atoms of the grains of dust with which they are in direct contact.
Electric fields attract & repel - and these cancel out to nothing, if the charges are balanced (as they are in your average rock).
As far as we know, Gravity fields only attract - and these don't cancel out at long distances. That is why gravity is the predominant force we observe in the universe at large, even though it is much weaker than electric forces.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/08/2017 22:41:50
Ok, I understand this , but does your summation account for emitted fields and objects being within a field?Quote from: TheBoxAn electron is attracted to the proton, so therefore the electrons in my body are attracted to the protons of the earth, valued logic that is pretty undeniable.Another way of looking at this is:
- An electron is attracted to the proton in the same atom. Agree. Without this electron, the atom in which this electron resides would have a net positive charge.
- An electron is attracted to the proton in a chemically bonded molecule. Agree. Without this electron, the molecule in which this electron resides would have a net positive charge.
- the electrons in my body are attracted to the protons of the earth. Disagree. This is saying that your body is a separate object from the Earth. If you took one electron from your body, the Earth would still be electrically neutral, and your body would not be attracted to the Earth. The electron you removed from your body would not be attracted to the Earth either (although the electron would be attracted to your body).
When you have a certain number of protons in the nucleus, and an equal number of electrons surrounding it, the electrons effectively shield the positive charge, once you move 2 or 3 atom-widths away from the atom (the London forces mentioned by Kryptid will operate closer than this to an atom).
So the electrons in your body are not attracted to the protons of the Earth - they are just too far away.
At best you could say that some surface atoms on the soles of your shoes are attracted to a few surface atoms of the grains of dust with which they are in direct contact.
Electric fields attract & repel - and these cancel out to nothing, if the charges are balanced (as they are in your average rock).
As far as we know, Gravity fields only attract - and these don't cancel out at long distances. That is why gravity is the predominant force we observe in the universe at large, even though it is much weaker than electric forces.
Charge travels up a wire for example, the wire being a ''conduit'' for the current. How do we know that charge does not extend its ''grasp'' by using a field for an ''ether''?
Surely the field and ''conduit'' would only ever show 0 net charge?
added- so if the earths electro-magnetic field was positive and negative charge it would read 0?
Added- I have just had this notion pop into my head,
E=mq²
Post by: guest39538 on 04/08/2017 20:54:01
huh........
1 Proton mass = 1 proton charge
They said it isn't . huh.......
Post by: Kryptid on 05/08/2017 20:39:16
Ok, I understand this , but does your summation account for emitted fields and objects being within a field?
Obviously it does, since that is what interactions with electromagnetic fields is all about.
Quote
Charge travels up a wire for example, the wire being a ''conduit'' for the current.
No it doesn't. Both the net and gross charge in a wire remains constant. In direct current, electrons do move up the wire but there are an equal number of protons in the wire. In alternating current, no particles are travelling up the wire at all.
Quote
How do we know that charge does not extend its ''grasp'' by using a field for an ''ether''?
I don't know what this sentence even means.
Quote
Surely the field and ''conduit'' would only ever show 0 net charge?
Yes.
Quote
added- so if the earths electro-magnetic field was positive and negative charge it would read 0?
Overall, yes. Not locally though, not if you want it to actually be able to affect things at a distance.
Quote
Added- I have just had this notion pop into my head,
E=mq²
Do the calculations and you'll see that it doesn't work.
Another science forum is saying that 1 is not equal to 1
huh........
1 Proton mass = 1 proton charge
They said it isn't . huh.......
That doesn't make any sense. Charge and mass are not measured in the same way. You might as well be saying that one kilometer equals one kilogram.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/08/2017 20:48:30
Utter nonsense.
Then what is mass if not charge? Charge is seemingly the only thing it can be.
It would make just as much sense to say "stupidity is seemingly the only thing it can be. "
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/08/2017 20:49:27
Another science forum is saying that 1 is not equal to 1Nobody said that did they.
The closest was when I said 1 isn't 1800
Post by: guest39538 on 12/08/2017 17:15:03
That doesn't make any sense. Charge and mass are not measured in the same way. You might as well be saying that one kilometer equals one kilogram.
Nothing as such, you clearly have not understand it. Mass is measured in essence on a set of scales, i.e kg
I believe mass is the measurement of action rather than the possible cause of action.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, i.e the opposite actions of charge have the reaction of giving a body mass.
There is no other answer, charge is the cause of mass and gravity. q1+q2=N, N is ostensible in my objective opinion.
The electrodynamics of moving bodies is also the electrodynamics of gravity. An electrostatic field can produce space time curvature, i.e see electrostatic water displacement.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/08/2017 17:19:33
What sort of a poor answer is ''utter nonsense''?Utter nonsense.
Then what is mass if not charge? Charge is seemingly the only thing it can be.
It would make just as much sense to say "stupidity is seemingly the only thing it can be. "
Please explain to the readers what mass is then if not a result of electrodynamics ?
My objective reasoning seems a bit more of an answer than your poor answer.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/08/2017 17:24:16
They are certainly implying that.Another science forum is saying that 1 is not equal to 1Nobody said that did they.
The closest was when I said 1 isn't 1800
1 of 1.6726219 × 10-27 kilograms = 1 of +1e
1 of 9.10938356 × 10-31 kilograms =1 of -e
Yes or no will do?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/08/2017 20:50:24
Did you not understand that?
Post by: guest39538 on 12/08/2017 22:35:12
1 apple is not 1 grape.A completely different context to the discussion and not even a close comparison. I can see you are not willing to have a serious discussion. I will await somebody who is willing to have a meaningful discussion.
Did you not understand that?
1=1 always
Post by: Kryptid on 12/08/2017 23:09:03
Nothing as such, you clearly have not understand it. Mass is measured in essence on a set of scales, i.e kg
It can also be measured by its inertia (i.e. the force required to accelerate an object).
Quote
I believe mass is the measurement of action rather than the possible cause of action.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, i.e the opposite actions of charge have the reaction of giving a body mass.
I'm not sure what you even mean by "action". What does "action of charge" mean?
Quote
There is no other answer, charge is the cause of mass and gravity. q1+q2=N, N is ostensible in my objective opinion.
Uncharged, massive neutrinos have refuted this, as I've already explained. The inability to create a gravitational dipole by creating an electric dipole has refuted this. Light not bending in electromagnetic fields has refuted this. Tauons, muons, electrons and antiprotons all having identical net and gross electric charges yet having very different masses refutes this.
Quote
The electrodynamics of moving bodies is also the electrodynamics of gravity. An electrostatic field can produce space time curvature, i.e see electrostatic water displacement.
Give us a link to even a single study that has shown space-time warping due to an electrostatic field.
1 of 1.6726219 × 10-27 kilograms = 1 of +1e
1 of 9.10938356 × 10-31 kilograms =1 of -e
If that was true, then a positron (the antiparticle counterpart to the electron) would have a mass equal to a proton, since they both have a charge of +1. Antiprotons would then have a mass equal to electrons, since they both have -1 charge. Instead, antiprotons have equal mass to protons and positrons equal mass to electrons. Again, there is no relationship between magnitude of charge and magnitude of mass.
Post by: Dubbelosix on 12/08/2017 23:22:16
Light is massless and has no charge unlike a rock that has charge and mass, but we dont know what the mass really is, so is the mass = charge and the charge is directly proportional to the mass?
Please help I am learning a lot about charge and mass etc.
Yes there may be a relationship between mass and charge.
The only exception we often deal with is neutrino's, the only particle as far we believe that has a very small mass, vanishingly small in fact, but is believed to have zero charge. Whether this is true in nature, may be a matter of theory, for instance, maybe the neutrino equally has a vanishingly small but non-zero charge with respect to its mass? I certainly believe this is possible.
Mass has also shown to be related to Weyl invariance
Which is by definition, the electromagnetic Planck charge equal to some definition of a charge in terms of its mass. In the past if my memory serves me right, charged massless particles was once predicted in the standard model from Yukawa physics, but was later ruled out.
More recently, Weyl fermions have been discovered which may lead the way to creating electrons ''without mass.'' Equally, the Weyl fermion is allowed to have a charge yet, will remain massless.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/08/2017 23:31:31
Inertia is the resistance to acceleration of an object not the force required to accelerate an object.Nothing as such, you clearly have not understand it. Mass is measured in essence on a set of scales, i.e kg
It can also be measured by its inertia (i.e. the force required to accelerate an object).QuoteI believe mass is the measurement of action rather than the possible cause of action.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, i.e the opposite actions of charge have the reaction of giving a body mass.
I'm not sure what you even mean by "action". What does "action of charge" mean?QuoteThere is no other answer, charge is the cause of mass and gravity. q1+q2=N, N is ostensible in my objective opinion.
Uncharged, massive neutrinos have refuted this, as I've already explained. The inability to create a gravitational dipole by creating an electric dipole has refuted this. Light not bending in electromagnetic fields has refuted this. Tauons, muons, electrons and antiprotons all having identical net and gross electric charges yet having very different masses refutes this.QuoteThe electrodynamics of moving bodies is also the electrodynamics of gravity. An electrostatic field can produce space time curvature, i.e see electrostatic water displacement.
Give us a link to even a single study that has shown space-time warping due to an electrostatic field.1 of 1.6726219 × 10-27 kilograms = 1 of +1e
1 of 9.10938356 × 10-31 kilograms =1 of -e
If that was true, then a positron (the antiparticle counterpart to the electron) would have a mass equal to a proton, since they both have a charge of +1. Antiprotons would then have a mass equal to electrons, since they both have -1 charge. Instead, antiprotons have equal mass to protons and positrons equal mass to electrons. Again, there is no relationship between magnitude of charge and magnitude of mass.
Quote
What does "action of charge" mean?
It means every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the actions of charge is motion i.e likewise charge repulses, opposite charges attract, the resulted action is motion/displacement.
Quote
Uncharged, massive neutrinos have refuted this, as I've already explained. The inability to create a gravitational dipole by creating an electric dipole has refuted this. Light not bending in electromagnetic fields has refuted this. Tauons, muons, electrons and antiprotons all having identical net and gross electric charges yet having very different masses refutes this.My notion is in it's early stages, I am quite sure in ''time'' I will have the answers that out premise the refute.
Quote
Give us a link to even a single study that has shown space-time warping due to an electrostatic field.
Obvious the premise is hypothetical at this stage, maybe even Psuedo, but my thoughts are based on water displacement by an electrical field, the field is not displacing the water, it is displacing the likewise charge of the water, it is the waters field that curves. I believe there is some merit in my thoughts on this.
Quote
If that was true, then a positron (the antiparticle counterpart to the electron) would have a mass equal to a proton, since they both have a charge of +1. Antiprotons would then have a mass equal to electrons, since they both have -1 charge. Instead, antiprotons have equal mass to protons and positrons equal mass to electrons. Again, there is no relationship between magnitude of charge and magnitude of mass.Entropy is a variate, loss and gain rate determined by the ''product'', I am not even sure anti protons are even real particles. (they sound of the imagination). I will research this and get back to you on that.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/08/2017 23:34:36
Thank you for some new information, I will have to research this information a little before I can make a proper comment.Light is massless and has no charge unlike a rock that has charge and mass, but we dont know what the mass really is, so is the mass = charge and the charge is directly proportional to the mass?
Please help I am learning a lot about charge and mass etc.
Yes there may be a relationship between mass and charge.
The only exception we often deal with is neutrino's, the only particle as far we believe that has a very small mass, vanishingly small in fact, but is believed to have zero charge. Whether this is true in nature, may be a matter of theory, for instance, maybe the neutrino equally has a vanishingly small but non-zero charge with respect to its mass? I certainly believe this is possible.
Mass has also shown to be related to Weyl invariance
Which is by definition, the electromagnetic Planck charge equal to some definition of a charge in terms of its mass. In the past if my memory serves me right, charged massless particles was once predicted in the standard model from Yukawa physics, but was later ruled out.
More recently, Weyl fermions have been discovered which may lead the way to creating electrons ''without mass.'' Equally, the Weyl fermion is allowed to have a charge yet, will remain massless.
Regards
Steve
added- after a quick research I came to this and my mind simplified on my own way to observe that all fields entangle ''flat'', something to do with this :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tensor
Quote
a metric tensor is a type of function which takes as input a pair of tangent vectors v and w at a point of a surface (or higher dimensional differentiable manifold) and produces a real number scalar g(v, w) in a way that generalizes many of the familiar properties of the dot product of vectors in Euclidean space. In the same way as a dot product, metric tensors are used to define the length of and angle between tangent vectors.
I then generalised this in a picture format.
flat.jpg (26.93 kB . 1001x617 - viewed 4043 times)I will keep researching the new information more to try to understand it better, my first thoughts are Tensors between likewise fields must leave a parallel void between fields.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/08/2017 23:58:59
Inertia is the resistance to acceleration of an object not the force required to accelerate an object.
But it can be measured by the force required to give it a particular acceleration. Mass and inertia always come in the same ratio, regardless of what the object is (hence why all objects accelerate at the same rate in a particular gravitational field despite having different masses). Charge and inertia do not always come in the same ratio (two charged objects can accelerate at different rates in an electric field, unlike masses in gravity).
Quote
It means every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the actions of charge is motion i.e likewise charge repulses, opposite charges attract, the resulted action is motion/displacement.
Which has nothing to do with mass being the same as charge.
Quote
My notion is in it's early stages, I am quite sure in ''time'' I will have the answers that out premise the refute.
Then there is absolutely no reason for us, or any scientists, to accept your hypothesis until you can address those refutations (which are major). I thought of another one as well: your model does not explain relativistic mass gain. As an object's velocity increases, so does its mass. The charge on the object, however, does not increase. How do you explain that?
Quote
Obvious the premise is hypothetical at this stage, maybe even Psuedo, but my thoughts are based on water displacement by an electrical field, the field is not displacing the water, it is displacing the likewise charge of the water, it is the waters field that curves. I believe there is some merit in my thoughts on this.
Get back to us when you have experimental data to support that hypothesis. Until then, there is no reason to accept it.
Quote
Entropy is a variate, loss and gain rate determined by the ''product'', I am not even sure anti protons are even real particles. (they sound of the imagination). I will research this and get back to you on that.
Entropy has nothing to do with mass being equal or not equal to charge. Antiprotons are very much real (they were first detected all the way back in 1955). They are produced routinely in particle accelerators.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/08/2017 00:20:04
I thought of another one as well: your model does not explain relativistic mass gain. As an object's velocity increases, so does its mass. The charge on the object, however, does not increase. How do you explain that?
I can answer this one,
Relativistic mass gain is badly misinterpreted. This one is quite easy to answer. An object in motion that increases in speed gains more Newtons of force that is interpreted as relative mass. The gain is speed not mass that gives a greater pE on impact of the object. An object that is at a constant speed impacts at a constant relative mass. Science has far too many things that mean the same thing.
For example if I lift an apple off the ground, I have gained height which is converted into acceleration when I drop the apple. The apple as not gained more mass or kinetic energy , it has gained speed and acceleration which equates to F=ma² and Newtons of force and potential energy (pE) of impact.
speed equals more force , not more mass.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/08/2017 00:41:52
I can answer this one,
Relativistic mass gain is badly misinterpreted. This one is quite easy to answer. An object in motion that increases in speed gains more Newtons of force that is interpreted as relative mass. The gain is speed not mass that gives a greater pE on impact of the object. An object that is at a constant speed impacts at a constant relative mass. Science has far too many things that mean the same thing.
For example if I lift an apple off the ground, I have gained height which is converted into acceleration when I drop the apple. The apple as not gained more mass or kinetic energy , it has gained speed and acceleration which equates to F=ma² and Newtons of force and potential energy (pE) of impact.
speed equals more force , not more mass.
That is inconsistent with relativity. More speed equals more force upon impact, yes, but that increase in speed alone cannot account for the degree of increase in energy. If a 1 kilogram object does not change mass when moving at 90% of the speed of light, then its kinetic energy would be about 36.4 billion gigajoules. If it does change mass, on the other hand, it will weigh about 2.29 times as much as it does at rest, resulting in a kinetic energy of 83.4 billion gigajoules. A 2.29 kilogram object with 83.4 billion gigajoules of kinetic energy is going to produce much more force upon impact than a 1 kilogram object with 36.4 billion gigajoules of kinetic energy. So obviously, an increase in speed alone does not account for the increase in force.
The only exception we often deal with is neutrino's, the only particle as far we believe that has a very small mass, vanishingly small in fact, but is believed to have zero charge. Whether this is true in nature, may be a matter of theory, for instance, maybe the neutrino equally has a vanishingly small but non-zero charge with respect to its mass? I certainly believe this is possible.
There is also the Z boson, which is electrically neutral but has a very high mass (more than 97 times heavier than a proton). They are not composite particles like neutrons, so they do not have internal charges (they also have no magnetic moment). Z-bosons can decay into various fermions and their corresponding antiparticles. There is about 3.36% chance of a Z boson decaying into a positron and electron. Positrons and electrons can annihilate with each other to form two gamma ray photons. Conservation laws thus prevent the Z boson from having any electric charge unless photons also have charge. If they do, the Z-boson must have only half of that charge. Photons have a mass of zero, whereas Z-bosons have a mass much greater than that of the proton. This throws another big, fat wrench in the idea that magnitude of charge is related to magnitude of mass.
Actually, either the charge on the Z boson has to be exactly zero, or charge conservation is violated. A free neutron usually decays into a proton, electron and anti-neutrino. About 0.1% of the time, the neutron decays into those same particles as well as a gamma ray photon. This means that the electric charge on a photon must be exactly zero, or this decay represents a violation of charge conservation. By reasoning in the above paragraph, the Z boson must also have exactly zero charge.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/08/2017 11:34:20
neutrino'sThis morning I have been looking at Neutrinos. Could you please provide some evidence of a Neutrino existence as seemingly I can't find any?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/08/2017 12:29:53
And 1 proton is not 1 positron.1 apple is not 1 grape.A completely different context to the discussion and not even a close comparison. I can see you are not willing to have a serious discussion. I will await somebody who is willing to have a meaningful discussion.
Did you not understand that?
1=1 always
They have the same charge, but they have different masses.
So mass clearly isn't the same thing as charge.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/08/2017 12:34:21
I am sorry but I do not believe in all these sub-atomic particles at this time. A positron means very little to me and sounds of the imagination rather than something factual. I personally think a lot of these sub-atomic particles are made up and not real .And 1 proton is not 1 positron.1 apple is not 1 grape.A completely different context to the discussion and not even a close comparison. I can see you are not willing to have a serious discussion. I will await somebody who is willing to have a meaningful discussion.
Did you not understand that?
1=1 always
They have the same charge, but they have different masses.
So mass clearly isn't the same thing as charge.
Please provide me with some evidence of a positron other than words alone?
added- Ok , they do not have different masses, you obviously can not weigh it , so who defines its mass?
Post by: Kryptid on 13/08/2017 15:17:41
neutrino'sThis morning I have been looking at Neutrinos. Could you please provide some evidence of a Neutrino existence as seemingly I can't find any?
You didn't look very hard:
Demonstration of Communication using Neutrinos: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2847.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2847.pdf)
World's Smallest Neutrino Detector observes elusive Interactions of Particles: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170803141114.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170803141114.htm)
Neutrino Detectors: https://www.windows2universe.org/sun/Solar_interior/Nuclear_Reactions/Neutrinos/detectors.html (https://www.windows2universe.org/sun/Solar_interior/Nuclear_Reactions/Neutrinos/detectors.html)
Neutrino Detector: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector)
Cowan-Reines Neutrino Experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowan%E2%80%93Reines_neutrino_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowan%E2%80%93Reines_neutrino_experiment)
I am sorry but I do not believe in all these sub-atomic particles at this time. A positron means very little to me and sounds of the imagination rather than something factual. I personally think a lot of these sub-atomic particles are made up and not real .
Please provide me with some evidence of a positron other than words alone?
You must not research particle physics much at all. Positrons are very well established, created on a regular basis by nuclear decay and particle accelerators.
CERN Scientists Create Antihydrogen Atoms: http://www.sci-news.com/physics/science-cern-antihydrogen-atoms-01706.html (http://www.sci-news.com/physics/science-cern-antihydrogen-atoms-01706.html) (Antihydrogen consists of a positron and an antiproton).
Irene Joliot-Curie, Nobel Laureate in Artificial Radioactivity: https://www.chem.fsu.edu/~gilmer/PDFs/Ch%202_Irene_Curie_Penny_Gilmer_6-19-11_pg_mh.pdf (https://www.chem.fsu.edu/~gilmer/PDFs/Ch%202_Irene_Curie_Penny_Gilmer_6-19-11_pg_mh.pdf). On page 8, it says:
Quote
Soon after, Carl D. Anderson and
Victor Hess in 1932 discovered the positron by studying cosmic rays interacting
with a lead plate in the presence of a magnetic field (Nobelprize.org, 1936).
Particles, which had the same mass as electrons, were emitted but they moved
toward the negatively charged plate in the magnetic field; thus the particles had to
be positively charged.
Positron: Experimental clues and discovery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron#Experimental_clues_and_discovery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron#Experimental_clues_and_discovery)
Quote
added- Ok , they do not have different masses, you obviously can not weigh it , so who defines its mass?You don't have to weigh a particle with a scale in order to find its mass. Here is how it can be done: https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1209 (https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1209)
If you have to reject the existence and properties of particles which have been detected and experimented with by scientists for decades in order to make your hypothesis work, then your hypothesis is broken.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/08/2017 17:40:56
One of your links failed to load.neutrino'sThis morning I have been looking at Neutrinos. Could you please provide some evidence of a Neutrino existence as seemingly I can't find any?
You didn't look very hard:
Demonstration of Communication using Neutrinos: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2847.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2847.pdf)
World's Smallest Neutrino Detector observes elusive Interactions of Particles: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170803141114.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170803141114.htm)
Neutrino Detectors: https://www.windows2universe.org/sun/Solar_interior/Nuclear_Reactions/Neutrinos/detectors.html]=https://www.windows2universe.org/sun/Solar_interior/Nuclear_Reactions/Neutrinos/detectors.html]https://www.windows2universe.org/sun/Solar_interior/Nuclear_Reactions/Neutrinos/detectors.html (http://=https://www.windows2universe.org/sun/Solar_interior/Nuclear_Reactions/Neutrinos/detectors.html)
Neutrino Detector: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector)
Cowan-Reines Neutrino Experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowan%E2%80%93Reines_neutrino_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowan%E2%80%93Reines_neutrino_experiment)I am sorry but I do not believe in all these sub-atomic particles at this time. A positron means very little to me and sounds of the imagination rather than something factual. I personally think a lot of these sub-atomic particles are made up and not real .
Please provide me with some evidence of a positron other than words alone?
You must not research particle physics much at all. Positrons are very well established, created on a regular basis by nuclear decay and particle accelerators.
CERN Scientists Create Antihydrogen Atoms: http://www.sci-news.com/physics/science-cern-antihydrogen-atoms-01706.html (http://www.sci-news.com/physics/science-cern-antihydrogen-atoms-01706.html) (Antihydrogen consists of a positron and an antiproton).
Irene Joliot-Curie, Nobel Laureate in Artificial Radioactivity: https://www.chem.fsu.edu/~gilmer/PDFs/Ch%202_Irene_Curie_Penny_Gilmer_6-19-11_pg_mh.pdf (https://www.chem.fsu.edu/~gilmer/PDFs/Ch%202_Irene_Curie_Penny_Gilmer_6-19-11_pg_mh.pdf). On page 8, it says:QuoteSoon after, Carl D. Anderson and
Victor Hess in 1932 discovered the positron by studying cosmic rays interacting
with a lead plate in the presence of a magnetic field (Nobelprize.org, 1936).
Particles, which had the same mass as electrons, were emitted but they moved
toward the negatively charged plate in the magnetic field; thus the particles had to
be positively charged.
Positron: Experimental clues and discovery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron#Experimental_clues_and_discovery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron#Experimental_clues_and_discovery)Quoteadded- Ok , they do not have different masses, you obviously can not weigh it , so who defines its mass?You don't have to weigh a particle with a scale in order to find its mass. Here is how it can be done: https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1209 (https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1209)
If you have to reject the existence and properties of particles which have been detected and experimented with by scientists for decades in order to make your hypothesis work, then your hypothesis is broken.
So do Neutrinos behave anything like a piece of dust? A piece of dust is seemingly attracted to things, maybe the attraction of a Neutrino falling to the ground is different than gravity?
Maybe it is like dust....
Post by: Kryptid on 13/08/2017 17:53:43
One of your links failed to load.
Which?
Quote
So do Neutrinos behave anything like a piece of dust? A piece of dust is seemingly attracted to things, maybe the attraction of a Neutrino falling to the ground is different than gravity?
Maybe it is like dust....
Dust is attracted to things by static electricity. This can happen because dust contains electric charges in itself that allow it to be polarized. Neutrinos do not have these internal charges and so cannot be attracted by static electricity.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/08/2017 18:28:32
The middle link of the list, the Neutrino detector link.One of your links failed to load.
Which?QuoteSo do Neutrinos behave anything like a piece of dust? A piece of dust is seemingly attracted to things, maybe the attraction of a Neutrino falling to the ground is different than gravity?
Maybe it is like dust....
Dust is attracted to things by static electricity. This can happen because dust contains electric charges in itself that allow it to be polarized. Neutrinos do not have these internal charges and so cannot be attracted by static electricity.
Thank you for discussing dust. I will consider looking at Neutrinos. Neutrinos seemingly are a big problem to the idea.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/08/2017 19:08:09
I am sorry but I do not believe in all these sub-atomic particles at this time. A positron means very little to me and sounds of the imagination rather than something factual. I personally think a lot of these sub-atomic particles are made up and not real .OK
Please provide me with some evidence of a positron other than words alone?
added- Ok , they do not have different masses, you obviously can not weigh it , so who defines its mass?
How about a video of both.
The radius of curvature of the tracks is a measure of the mass.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/08/2017 22:29:56
Ok, a very cool and interesting experiment that shows something. There was a magnet involved so I assume the curvature pattern was the magnetic field lines and the medium used to show the field lines?I am sorry but I do not believe in all these sub-atomic particles at this time. A positron means very little to me and sounds of the imagination rather than something factual. I personally think a lot of these sub-atomic particles are made up and not real .OK
Please provide me with some evidence of a positron other than words alone?
added- Ok , they do not have different masses, you obviously can not weigh it , so who defines its mass?
How about a video of both.
The radius of curvature of the tracks is a measure of the mass.
If not could you please explain further in the most simplest form you can think off.
p.s thanks for sharing such a cool thing.
added- I drew this yesterday.
field.jpg (31.08 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 3627 times)added- I am not sure , but I think the second curve the other way in the video might have a slower velocity so it can't curve the vector space but it rather concave by opposing force.
added- The more I have thought about it the more I think it is the magnetic field lines fluctuations that ''you'' are observing. The first source having a greater magnitude of force than the second source on the magnetic field lines fluctuations.
In simple terms, one made it wobble one way and the other made it wobble the other my having different force magnitudes on the opposing magnetic field. (I think!)
That is what I thought was happening in the experiment , please correct my interpretation.
Post by: Kryptid on 14/08/2017 01:21:09
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/08/2017 22:28:16
That is what I thought was happening in the experiment , please correct my interpretation.
Read all about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber
Post by: guest39538 on 15/08/2017 20:40:17
I have read it , but at this time I am not ''seeing'' it. To me it looks rather more like field lines than observing a positron. I must not yet understand the experiment correctly.That is what I thought was happening in the experiment , please correct my interpretation.
Read all about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber
Post by: guest39538 on 15/08/2017 20:45:21
q1+q2=N
An electron joining a Proton has the consequence of N which is the Neutron.
If m=4 and q=2
F(q²)=m²
Accounting for the inertia reference frames charge as well as the atom . The mass of 4 being a consequence of G of the two bodies and charge squared, q²=4
Implying that all atoms are either Neutrons or ions and the mass of a body is directly proportional to the charge squared.
added- after looking further the above did not work when I looked at Plutonium.
However I still think if q²=F²
Post by: Dubbelosix on 15/08/2017 22:29:25
''But it turns out that Nature has been kind enough to present us with just such objects, so that by comparing the observed mass of the charged one with the observed mass of the neutral one, we can tell whether there is any electromagnetic mass. For example, there are the neutrons and protons. They interact with tremendous forces—the nuclear forces—whose origin is unknown. However, as we have already described, the nuclear forces have one remarkable property. So far as they are concerned, the neutron and proton are exactly the same. The nuclear forces between neutron and neutron, neutron and proton, and proton and proton are all identical as far as we can tell. Only the little electromagnetic forces are different; electrically the proton and neutron are as different as night and day. This is just what we wanted. There are two particles, identical from the point of view of the strong interactions, but different electrically. And they have a small difference in mass. The mass difference between the proton and the neutron—expressed as the difference in the rest-energy mc2mc2 in units of MeV—is about 1.31.3 MeV, which is about 2.62.6 times the electron mass. The classical theory would then predict a radius of about 1313 to 1212 the classical electron radius, or about 10−1310−13 cm. Of course, one should really use the quantum theory, but by some strange accident, all the constants—2π2π’s and ℏℏ’s, etc.—come out so that the quantum theory gives roughly the same radius as the classical theory. The only trouble is that the sign is wrong! The neutron is heavier than the proton.
Nature has also given us several other pairs—or triplets—of particles which appear to be exactly the same except for their electrical charge. They interact with protons and neutrons, through the so-called “strong” interactions of the nuclear forces. In such interactions, the particles of a given kind—say the ππ-mesons—behave in every way like one object except for their electrical charge. In Table 28–1 we give a list of such particles, together with their measured masses. The charged ππ-mesons—positive or negative—have a mass of 139.6139.6 MeV, but the neutral ππ-meson is 4.64.6 MeV lighter. We believe that this mass difference is electromagnetic; it would correspond to a particle radius of 33 to 4×10−144×10−14 cm. You will see from the table that the mass differences of the other particles are usually of the same general size.''
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_28.html
and further...
''You are no doubt worried about the different signs of the mass differences in the table. It is easy to see why the charged ones should be heavier than the neutral ones. But what about those pairs like the proton and the neutron, where the measured mass comes out the other way? Well, it turns out that these particles are complicated, and the computation of the electromagnetic mass must be more elaborate for them. For instance, although the neutron has no net charge, it does have a charge distribution inside it—it is only the net charge that is zero. In fact, we believe that the neutron looks—at least sometimes—like a proton with a negative ππ-meson in a “cloud” around it, as shown in Fig. 28–5. Although the neutron is “neutral,” because its total charge is zero, there are still electromagnetic energies (for example, it has a magnetic moment), so it’s not easy to tell the sign of the electromagnetic mass difference without a detailed theory of the internal structure.''
Post by: guest39538 on 16/08/2017 00:04:24
I have some key things for you to readThank you for sharing that very interesting read. From this my thoughts have ventured back to this:
''But it turns out that Nature has been kind enough to present us with just such objects, so that by comparing the observed mass of the charged one with the observed mass of the neutral one, we can tell whether there is any electromagnetic mass. For example, there are the neutrons and protons. They interact with tremendous forces—the nuclear forces—whose origin is unknown. However, as we have already described, the nuclear forces have one remarkable property. So far as they are concerned, the neutron and proton are exactly the same. The nuclear forces between neutron and neutron, neutron and proton, and proton and proton are all identical as far as we can tell. Only the little electromagnetic forces are different; electrically the proton and neutron are as different as night and day. This is just what we wanted. There are two particles, identical from the point of view of the strong interactions, but different electrically. And they have a small difference in mass. The mass difference between the proton and the neutron—expressed as the difference in the rest-energy mc2mc2 in units of MeV—is about 1.31.3 MeV, which is about 2.62.6 times the electron mass. The classical theory would then predict a radius of about 1313 to 1212 the classical electron radius, or about 10−1310−13 cm. Of course, one should really use the quantum theory, but by some strange accident, all the constants—2π2π’s and ℏℏ’s, etc.—come out so that the quantum theory gives roughly the same radius as the classical theory. The only trouble is that the sign is wrong! The neutron is heavier than the proton.
Nature has also given us several other pairs—or triplets—of particles which appear to be exactly the same except for their electrical charge. They interact with protons and neutrons, through the so-called “strong” interactions of the nuclear forces. In such interactions, the particles of a given kind—say the ππ-mesons—behave in every way like one object except for their electrical charge. In Table 28–1 we give a list of such particles, together with their measured masses. The charged ππ-mesons—positive or negative—have a mass of 139.6139.6 MeV, but the neutral ππ-meson is 4.64.6 MeV lighter. We believe that this mass difference is electromagnetic; it would correspond to a particle radius of 33 to 4×10−144×10−14 cm. You will see from the table that the mass differences of the other particles are usually of the same general size.''
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_28.html
and further...
''You are no doubt worried about the different signs of the mass differences in the table. It is easy to see why the charged ones should be heavier than the neutral ones. But what about those pairs like the proton and the neutron, where the measured mass comes out the other way? Well, it turns out that these particles are complicated, and the computation of the electromagnetic mass must be more elaborate for them. For instance, although the neutron has no net charge, it does have a charge distribution inside it—it is only the net charge that is zero. In fact, we believe that the neutron looks—at least sometimes—like a proton with a negative ππ-meson in a “cloud” around it, as shown in Fig. 28–5. Although the neutron is “neutral,” because its total charge is zero, there are still electromagnetic energies (for example, it has a magnetic moment), so it’s not easy to tell the sign of the electromagnetic mass difference without a detailed theory of the internal structure.''
q1+q2=N
X+Z+Y=n
N≠n
Something is saying to me that the Neutron has the same ''charge'' as a possible spacial field. But the neutron charge is not equal to the combined charge measurement of the Proton-electron charge . So although N seems equal to n, N has a greater magnitude than n.
I think maybe .... the neutron contains the earths electromagnetic field of n. I will keep thinking and learning , thanks for the quotes and link.
added memo for myself: A positive polarity point charge can not retain form unless there is a negative polarity point charge occupying the same space that is directly proportional.